What made you choose Canon in the first place?

[kaswindell]

My first SLR was a Canon TX (basically a stripped down FTb) in the late '70s... I have had a number of Canons since and while I looked at Nikon when it was time to go digital I decided that Canon had the better controls, so switched from FD to EOS.

 

[jeff92k7]

I started out with a Canon Vixia camcorder when I needed a good video camera for a decent price. The Canon got consistently higher reviews over the competing models in the same price range. A couple of years later, I wanted another video camera so I could use multiple cameras on projects. With an increased budget, I reviewed the available options. Again, the Canon cameras came out on top because of the video capabilities of the Canon DSLR's. I purchased a T2i and a few lenses, installed magic lantern, and have never regretted it.

Now I spend more time doing still photos than I do with video, and still find Canon cameras (and glass) to be well worth the cost.

 

[IWLP]

I bought my first DSLR in 2005, and was choosing between a 20D and a Nikon D70. At that time, Canon's CMOS sensor tech was superior to Nikon's CCD tech, especially in low-light shooting. It was impressive that the 20D gave a "clean" ISO 400 and a "usable" ISO 800, as I recall.

There were other things I liked better about the 20D and the Canon system (AF, base ISO of 100, 8mp vs. 6mp), but a camera dealer in Wichita, KS, said he had more Nikons come in for repair than Canons. That sort of helped seal the deal at the time.

 

[sunnyVan]

Used to shoot 4/3 Olympus...... And they abandoned the format for micro 4/3. Looked at Nikon and canon,greatly preferred the canon user interface on the above-rebel cameras and the selection of glass, and never regretted it.

And the 70-200..... It's worth going canon just to use that lens!

You're probably right. The 70-200 is excellent, although I don't know if Nikon has something similar. (I don't know Nikon too well). The only downside about the white lens is that it's a bit intimidating to other people. It's hard to be discreet.

 

[jm977]

Quite a few reasons. From the days of film, my personal perception was that the Canon lenses were better. Now it's a fuzzy area but in any case, the Canon lenses are very good. The transition to digital was another reason in that to my eyes, the Canon output was more pleasing. And Nikon camera are all "backward". My brain can't get around the ergonomics of their bodies and the Canons just make more sense to me. I hear the Nikons are easier to use regarding their flash system but I've grown accustomed to my gear and I have amassed far too much to make a switch feasible. As a side note, a local college has photography courses and dictate the use of Nikons. Personally, I find that distasteful and don't see how they can get away with that as many students enroll only to find out their Canon gear needs to be sold to fund Nikons. On the upside, there is always a plentiful supply of very unused, used Canon gear for sale every fall.

 

[sunnyVan]

Quite a few reasons. From the days of film, my personal perception was that the Canon lenses were better. Now it's a fuzzy area but in any case, the Canon lenses are very good. The transition to digital was another reason in that to my eyes, the Canon output was more pleasing. And Nikon camera are all "backward". My brain can't get around the ergonomics of their bodies and the Canons just make more sense to me. I hear the Nikons are easier to use regarding their flash system but I've grown accustomed to my gear and I have amassed far too much to make a switch feasible. As a side note, a local college has photography courses and dictate the use of Nikons. Personally, I find that distasteful and don't see how they can get away with that as many students enroll only to find out their Canon gear needs to be sold to fund Nikons. On the upside, there is always a plentiful supply of very unused, used Canon gear for sale every fall.

Wow really? That's really distasteful. I'm not surprised if there's some kind of under the table deal...

 

[Badger]

Ah nostalgia
I couldn't quite afford the 10D at the time, then Canon came out with the first DSLR with a kit lens for under $1000, the original Digital Rebel. I jumped in and haven't looked back since.

 

[AvTvM]

quite simple ... EOS350D ... there was no comparable product avaliable back then at that pricepoint.
later I stayed with Canon, beacuse
1. i was familiar with the user interface + ergonomics
2. Nikon never got around producing a 17-55 with IS (or VR).

First day the 7D became availbale I got it an will hold on to it, until I finally get a compact, but very hi-end mirrorless system camera with FF-sensor. My preference would be a Canon FF mirrorless with D800 sensor, AF-performance like 1D-X and body size like SOny RX-1 ...

 

[2n10]

I had a Kodak Z730 and decided I wanted a better camera to take photos of my hobby and A canon SX20IS seemed to fit the need and pocketbook.

I later decided I wanted something that gave even better quality and got a T3i with both kit lenses. I then purchased a 7D because I had always lusted after its abilities and considered it to be in my price range.

 

[aroo]

My first digital camera was/is a Powershot S50. Love it. One day it started putting terrible pink and white lines all over the image. Canon fixed the whole thing, at least 3 or 4 years old, no charge.

So at the same time I wanted to get a DSLR and the Xsi was just about to be replaced (which I didn't realize at the time), and I got a great deal on a bunch of starter lenses and the body. Love that camera. I bought it because of the great service on the previous one. Autofocus failed after 2 years, I had to pay almost what the body sells for used to get it fixed. Not as impressed this time, but hey, it works great now and gets heavy use. Also got an Elan 35mm on CL for $10.

Started teaching in an art department that needed new gear so I got Canons for the school since I know how to use and teach that system. Love having all the cameras share lenses and students can check out what they need for their purpose.

 

[Jens_T]

I bought my first DSLR back in 2007 - after having shot with a Minolta X300 many years before.
The choice was between the Canon 40D and Nikon D200. The two decisive points were that the D200 was a tad to expensive for my budget and I liked the feel / grip of the 40D better.
My 40D is still in use and only recently I added a used 5D2. ( I guess I have would have been able to afford a D200 I would shoot a D800 now )

 

[overniven]

My first camera was a film Rebel 2000 back in 1999 or so. After spending a couple of years with it, I bought a Sony digital camera. After spending several disappointing years with it I went back to canon and purchased a Rebel T1i. Several lens purchases later, I'm still using it, but am now shopping for a replacement. I'm not so deep in that I couldn't switch to Nikon, but I've had a good experience with this camera so sometime this year, I'll upgrade to a nicer body. I'd like to go FF, but I'm not sure I can afford the glass needed to make it shine.

 

[eml58]

Can on ??
Nik on ??

I think Can on sounds nicer than Nik on

Ok, joking, Lenses, just about the Lenses, I've been a Nik on shooter a long time back, switched to Can on with the Ae1, tried the more recent Nik on D800 (For Underwater, to replace my 5DMK2) wasn't happy with it, too much Hype (Which I was believing) not enough substance, good Camera but not good enough to stay with, sold it & put one of my 5DMK3 into a Seacam Housing, now with the news the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) is actually going to be available later this year, I'm a Can on shooter for life Baby.

 

[bholliman]

I'm not sure... I used to shoot with a Nikon FM2 back in the film days and loved it. I eventually sold it and didn't do much photography until my interest was rekindled 3-4 years ago. I had decided to buy a DSLR for the IQ, FPS and optical viewfinder but was undecided between Nikon and Canon. I'd read enough to know that those two manufacturers had the broadest line of cameras and lenses, so I narrowed it down to the two big dogs.

I read several reviews and was still undecided between the Canon T2i and whatever the competing Nikon body was back in 2010. I decided on the T2i (550D) after handling both it and the Nikon at a Best Buy store liking the feel and layout of controls better on the Canon. Now, I have roughly $9k invested in Canon cameras and lenses, so I'm probably a Canonista for life.

 

[Rick]

In 2003, when I decided to buy a DSLR, I also decided it was going to be FF - eventually. Canon had the only FF DSLR but it was expensive. Rumor in the fall of 2003 on DPR was that it wouldn't be long before an affordable FF appeared. Whether anyone repeating that gossip back in those days actually knew what they were talking about was debatable but I acted on it as though it was gospel. I bought a Rebel as an interim camera and two years later baam!! the 5D was released. Something else influenced my decision too. Nikon and their customers swore by crop and I had no way of knowing at that time it was just swagger and smack mostly. But, bottom line, I didn't want to invest in a brand that was "never" going to employ FF sensors.

That was 2003. Today, I use Canon and Nikon. If Sony ever makes another FF DSLR with 30+ MPs, I'd love to own the CZ 24-70. If Leica ever figures out that selling cameras cheap so that they can sell their lenses is the truly smart move, I'll buy an Mxx (assuming their manufacturing can keep up with the demand). The point being that I am not married to a brand. I bought Nikon as soon as they released a FF camera that was not a duplicate of any Canon cameras I already owned and purchased Nikkor lenses that outpreform what Canon has or that Canon doesn't have at all.

 

[beckstoy]

IMHO, I think that Canon is better with skin tones. Also, low ISO performance of the 5DM3 put me squarely in their camp.

Canon glass is better for the dollar, bodies feel better in the hand, ergonomics are outstanding, and therefore even with all my heavy glass it all seems easier to carry and use.

I've always been impressed with Canon's attention to IQ, Processors and ISO. I don't need Mega Mega-Pixels for what I do (Weddings, Events).

 

[UrbanImages]

I learned how to shoot on my dads AE-1 when I was a teenager. When I decided to get my own it was the Rebel G,(which I still use). I was a skeptical adapter to digital, I made the plunge in 05 and bought the silver Rebel. I was hooked!! After that I upgraded to the 40D in 08 and have since purchased 2-5D II's, 5D III and 7D.. I shoot professionally, and have what I truly believe is superior glass in Canon lenses. My partner shoots Nikon, I don't find it to be very user friendly in both operations and ergonomics. When we have big shoots, she always makes me do it with my Canon's

 

[azog]

First off, the support. I was travelling through Asia (Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines) a few years ago with my Nikon. I started having problems with my shutter closing halfway through an exposure and tried everything I could think of. So I tried finding someone who could look at it in Thailand, no luck since Canon was the dominant brand there. Got to The Philippines and Canon was everywhere there as well but noone would have a look at my Nikon Finally caved and bought a 5d2 and literally gave my old camera away. Haven't looked back since.

Second, I like the skin tones sooooo much more on my 5d2 than the comparable D700, D800. People just look more alive and vivid rather than pale and sickly on the Nikons. Sure you can tinker in post, but I prefer not to do too much work in post anyway.

Third, is Magic Lantern. There is no equivalent on the Nikon side of things and since I shoot a lot of video while travelling, it really comes in handy and I can't imagine not being able to use it anymore.

Finally, there really isn't a better all around camera than the 5d3 in my opinion. I am upgrading to it in the near future and if I had gone Nikon, I would be stuck with either a D800 or D600. Since downgrading is out of the question, I wouldn't touch the D600. The D800 also feels slow, sluggish, and I don't like having to upgrade my computer to handle the file sizes in LR.

Although there are some things on the Nikon side such as better dynamic range, the creative lighting systems, better ergonomics (subjective), and a slightly better shutter sound (really subjective) that I want, I am happy with my Canon.

 

[rizenphoenix]

I recently upgraded to full frame and during this time I considered both the 6D and the Nikon D600. Before making the purchase I dropped my two most used lenses, rendering both unusable. This left me with only a nifty 50 - thus freeing me from any real concern for having to switch makers. I tried both several times and as much as i wanted to like the D600 due to it's superior spec list I just couldn't. The 6D had much better color rendition. The button layout and the way the camera's fit my hand also were vastly better on the 6D. The final factor was despite the lackluster spec list the 6D kept up with or exceeded the D600(especially in low light situations) in real world performance.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Back in the 1960's, it was a choice between Canon Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta. I could not afford a Nikon F, and Pentax was also expensive, so I bought a new FTQL. Since then I've had almost every brand of film camera and most of the digital ones as well.
Now that I have $$$$$ invested in lenses, I'm not likely to change.
I will buy whatever brand of P&S I fancy though.